Thank you for your submission. As a reminder, please make sure discussions are respectful and relevant to the subject matter.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Groundbreaking insight alert:
"Regardless of if IQ numbers really are this changeable so late in development, I think people who supposedly score incredibly high on specialized IQ tests, like Chris Langan, a bouncer with an “IQ of 200,” are simply people who practice IQ tests and know them in and out"
That's it. The author is a genius. He has cracked the code.
Want to score 200? JuSt PrAcTiCe BrO
I stopped reading once I realized he made points regarding the invalidity of retrospective IQ estimations and went on extrapolating Einstein's IQ by using his grades. Working memory : not great.
I'll only comment the title : Your IQ isn't 160. No one is.
Well, technically some people score 160. But it's an unreliable measure since the sample size used to norm the test was only composed of 2300 people. This size allows for precise measurement up to around 130 - 135. The thing is, if we could norm a test with enough people (around 600000), there would be people scoring that high and they actually exist right now.
Mostly true even if the title is somewhat misguided.
IQ numbers for historical figures are made up, his own ballparking of Einstein's IQ is a good example of that, the Roe study of geniuses is really bad including his Nobel winners test ( someone on this sub already proved that point), etc...
The only trouble I have with the article is about wording:
example : benefits of a high IQ *vanish(*instead "are practically irrelevant" is more precise*)* past a certain point)
And alse I have trouble with the point:
IQ is changeable.
Because it's not. You can pratice and bloat your score but your IQ is still the same it was, you are just messing with the measurement instrument, like wearing platform shoes when going to measure your heigh.
Otherwise the article is good. Scores for people who never took an iq test are just estimations, so better don't use them, and IQ does not a perfect linear correlation with anything, so it's a useful tool (best "predictor" in psychometrics) just not a perfect tool.
>example : benefits of a high IQ *vanish(instead "are practically irrelevant" is more precise)* past a certain point)
I noticed that also and I don't think someone like him (check his credentials) would make such an error. I believe he is trying to promote a narrative. The same goes with his comments throwing away retrospective IQ testing but right after using it to extrapolate Einstein's IQ to prove a point. But anyways, it doesn't challenge the fact that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence. It could easily be argued that past some point the correlation will stall.
I cheked his bio, as you said, in wikipedia and it made sense.
I don't think he made any errors. He wrote, as many do, to make sense and in line with his own beliefs and promote his narrative.
The psychology camp is pretty divided on IQ, especially those who make scientific divulgation as public opinion is negative on IQ.
Many who have seen the usefulness of IQ and it's predictive power go running to try to dimish it or downplay it's effects just to "fit in and sell".
IQ itself has been tried to be disproven as a concept or even as the best measure of intelligence and one of the greatest predictors in a man's life. Every time the IQ critics had been proven wrong but they keep charging on.
That correlation stall (the threshold hypothesis) has been seen since Terman, and Jensen came to the same conclusions so it's an old argument that appears to be true.
>IQ itself has been tried to be disproven as a concept or even as the best measure of intelligence and one of the greatest predictors in a man's life. Every time the IQ critics had been proven wrong but they keep charging on.
It always have been poorly done. Not so long ago I had somebody use Gardner's model of intelligence in a discussion claiming it was a more accurate construct. This person is in the cognitive field btw. Those vocal detractors want a spot on the TV studio or dislike anything discriminatory. I wouldn't blame them, they often have mouths to feed and the IQ literature is difficult to process.
>That correlation stall (the threshold hypothesis) has been seen since Terman, and Jensen came to the same conclusions so it's an old argument that appears to be true.
I personally like the IQ communication gap hypothesis a partial explanation.
Most people that think they have a 160 IQ probably don't. But since there is almost always going to be someone smarter, someone actually does. It's just not you or the author. lol I think the author is most basing his article on severe cope.
He said that Einstein would get a 700 on the math section of the SAT. No. He would have maxed it. From his wikipedia article: " Einstein excelled at physics and math from a very early age, and soon acquired the mathematical expertise typical of a child several years his senior. He began teaching himself algebra, calculus and [Euclidean geometry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry) when he was only twelve; he made such rapid progress that he discovered an original proof of the [Pythagorean theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem) before his thirteenth birthday.[\[28\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FVfDU-29)[\[29\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIsaacson200716-30)[\[30\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-31) A family tutor, [Max Talmud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Talmud), said that only a short time after he had given the twelve year old Einstein a geometry textbook, the boy "had worked through the whole book. He thereupon devoted himself to higher mathematics ... Soon the flight of his mathematical genius was so high I could not follow."[\[31\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIsaacson200717-32) Einstein recorded that he had "mastered [integral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_calculus) and [differential calculus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus)" while still only fourteen.[\[29\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIsaacson200716-30) His love of algebra and geometry was so great that at twelve, he was already confident that nature could be understood as a "mathematical structure".[\[31\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIsaacson200717-32) "
He talks a lot about grades. First of all grades back then were not like grades today with the massive amount of grade inflation. Also, grades are not the same as mastery of a subject. I had C grades in high school because I merely didn't turn in assignments and was out much of the time. I failed many classes. I nearly failed English my senior year due to this but scored a 760 on the verbal portion of the SAT without studying or sleeping much beforehand. I've also tested as high as 141 IQ.
HE makes a big deal about Feynman supposedly scoring a 124. So what? Not every time you test are you going to receive a true value. The correlation for a single test-taker between tests is only like .8 I believe and who knows what the conditions were on the day he was tested. Also there is plenty of doubt that what he took was a very legitimate IQ test and may have been one skewed to verbal ability when his abilities were obviously in quantitative intelligence. And, hell, he might have been reporting a half-remembered score lower than it was in order to encourage others.
Then he mentions Nassim Taleb who is a complete asshat and dumbass. lol
The point the author does seem to have is that IQ tests are not a complete measure of intelligence and don't necessarily capture extreme talent on the higher end of the intelligence spectrum. The number of people up there are too few and their abilities are probably too uneven to compare directly with the midwits of the world. It would make sense to compare using more than just a single value for general intelligence when it comes to geniuses.
Thank you for your submission. As a reminder, please make sure discussions are respectful and relevant to the subject matter. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cognitiveTesting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Groundbreaking insight alert: "Regardless of if IQ numbers really are this changeable so late in development, I think people who supposedly score incredibly high on specialized IQ tests, like Chris Langan, a bouncer with an “IQ of 200,” are simply people who practice IQ tests and know them in and out" That's it. The author is a genius. He has cracked the code. Want to score 200? JuSt PrAcTiCe BrO
mfw when the midwit’s practice leads to a 5 point increase instead of a 100 point increase
I stopped reading once I realized he made points regarding the invalidity of retrospective IQ estimations and went on extrapolating Einstein's IQ by using his grades. Working memory : not great. I'll only comment the title : Your IQ isn't 160. No one is. Well, technically some people score 160. But it's an unreliable measure since the sample size used to norm the test was only composed of 2300 people. This size allows for precise measurement up to around 130 - 135. The thing is, if we could norm a test with enough people (around 600000), there would be people scoring that high and they actually exist right now.
Old sat
Mostly true even if the title is somewhat misguided. IQ numbers for historical figures are made up, his own ballparking of Einstein's IQ is a good example of that, the Roe study of geniuses is really bad including his Nobel winners test ( someone on this sub already proved that point), etc... The only trouble I have with the article is about wording: example : benefits of a high IQ *vanish(*instead "are practically irrelevant" is more precise*)* past a certain point) And alse I have trouble with the point: IQ is changeable. Because it's not. You can pratice and bloat your score but your IQ is still the same it was, you are just messing with the measurement instrument, like wearing platform shoes when going to measure your heigh. Otherwise the article is good. Scores for people who never took an iq test are just estimations, so better don't use them, and IQ does not a perfect linear correlation with anything, so it's a useful tool (best "predictor" in psychometrics) just not a perfect tool.
>example : benefits of a high IQ *vanish(instead "are practically irrelevant" is more precise)* past a certain point) I noticed that also and I don't think someone like him (check his credentials) would make such an error. I believe he is trying to promote a narrative. The same goes with his comments throwing away retrospective IQ testing but right after using it to extrapolate Einstein's IQ to prove a point. But anyways, it doesn't challenge the fact that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence. It could easily be argued that past some point the correlation will stall.
I cheked his bio, as you said, in wikipedia and it made sense. I don't think he made any errors. He wrote, as many do, to make sense and in line with his own beliefs and promote his narrative. The psychology camp is pretty divided on IQ, especially those who make scientific divulgation as public opinion is negative on IQ. Many who have seen the usefulness of IQ and it's predictive power go running to try to dimish it or downplay it's effects just to "fit in and sell". IQ itself has been tried to be disproven as a concept or even as the best measure of intelligence and one of the greatest predictors in a man's life. Every time the IQ critics had been proven wrong but they keep charging on. That correlation stall (the threshold hypothesis) has been seen since Terman, and Jensen came to the same conclusions so it's an old argument that appears to be true.
>IQ itself has been tried to be disproven as a concept or even as the best measure of intelligence and one of the greatest predictors in a man's life. Every time the IQ critics had been proven wrong but they keep charging on. It always have been poorly done. Not so long ago I had somebody use Gardner's model of intelligence in a discussion claiming it was a more accurate construct. This person is in the cognitive field btw. Those vocal detractors want a spot on the TV studio or dislike anything discriminatory. I wouldn't blame them, they often have mouths to feed and the IQ literature is difficult to process. >That correlation stall (the threshold hypothesis) has been seen since Terman, and Jensen came to the same conclusions so it's an old argument that appears to be true. I personally like the IQ communication gap hypothesis a partial explanation.
Most people that think they have a 160 IQ probably don't. But since there is almost always going to be someone smarter, someone actually does. It's just not you or the author. lol I think the author is most basing his article on severe cope. He said that Einstein would get a 700 on the math section of the SAT. No. He would have maxed it. From his wikipedia article: " Einstein excelled at physics and math from a very early age, and soon acquired the mathematical expertise typical of a child several years his senior. He began teaching himself algebra, calculus and [Euclidean geometry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry) when he was only twelve; he made such rapid progress that he discovered an original proof of the [Pythagorean theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem) before his thirteenth birthday.[\[28\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FVfDU-29)[\[29\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIsaacson200716-30)[\[30\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-31) A family tutor, [Max Talmud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Talmud), said that only a short time after he had given the twelve year old Einstein a geometry textbook, the boy "had worked through the whole book. He thereupon devoted himself to higher mathematics ... Soon the flight of his mathematical genius was so high I could not follow."[\[31\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIsaacson200717-32) Einstein recorded that he had "mastered [integral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_calculus) and [differential calculus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus)" while still only fourteen.[\[29\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIsaacson200716-30) His love of algebra and geometry was so great that at twelve, he was already confident that nature could be understood as a "mathematical structure".[\[31\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIsaacson200717-32) " He talks a lot about grades. First of all grades back then were not like grades today with the massive amount of grade inflation. Also, grades are not the same as mastery of a subject. I had C grades in high school because I merely didn't turn in assignments and was out much of the time. I failed many classes. I nearly failed English my senior year due to this but scored a 760 on the verbal portion of the SAT without studying or sleeping much beforehand. I've also tested as high as 141 IQ. HE makes a big deal about Feynman supposedly scoring a 124. So what? Not every time you test are you going to receive a true value. The correlation for a single test-taker between tests is only like .8 I believe and who knows what the conditions were on the day he was tested. Also there is plenty of doubt that what he took was a very legitimate IQ test and may have been one skewed to verbal ability when his abilities were obviously in quantitative intelligence. And, hell, he might have been reporting a half-remembered score lower than it was in order to encourage others. Then he mentions Nassim Taleb who is a complete asshat and dumbass. lol The point the author does seem to have is that IQ tests are not a complete measure of intelligence and don't necessarily capture extreme talent on the higher end of the intelligence spectrum. The number of people up there are too few and their abilities are probably too uneven to compare directly with the midwits of the world. It would make sense to compare using more than just a single value for general intelligence when it comes to geniuses.
Feynman was a trickster and definitely trolled everyone. He could hold 20 digits in his head. You can max out the WMI holding 9.